New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Keep in mind that the only failure period of the second disk (raid5) or second AND third disk (raid6) is the rebuild time. Most rebuilds are done in a couple of days, call it a week. That makes the likelyhood of failure of the whole array quite a lot lower.
Then again, the likelyhood for a drive to fail during the disk-intensive rebuild process gets higher due to the rebuild process itself, increasing the odds yet again.
Also keep in mind that raid6 arrays in general contain about double the disks of a raid5 array, making equal-disk array comparisons quite useless.
Then add the chance of a controller crapping out on you (hardware raid) versus the software raid being slower (for raid6 at least), and you end up with a lot of things to take into account, which cannot be represented in a single table.
Yep. That's why it's meaningful to look at what real-world builders have been doing over the years. It's no longer a new field where everyone is pulling stuff out of their butt. If they're buying the extra drives for R6 it's because there's developed evidence that the benefits are worth it.
Show it.
And btw, neither did I say that R6 users are stupid nor am I in any way anti R6. In fact, I have clearly stated that for certain customers/scenarios R6 is indeed the more attractive solution.
For others, in particular for the scenario that is relevant here (cheap storage VPS) R6 is not the most attractive nor even an adequate solution.
The problem we have is that you want to establish R6 to be generally better. And the problem is that you argue by arbitrary doubt, by authority, and even socially.
So, show us the evidence.
You're the one making the extraordinary claims. Those are the claims that require the extraordinary proof. All I have to do is point to the many storage hosts using R6 and postulate that they're not stupid.
You still haven't explained that table you posted. How about showing the calculation of just the first row? That's this one:
I have told you the (well established and commonly used) formula used. And the values used have been documented.
Moreover: Try those "I don't need to prove but you must prove" games with someone else.
I have clearly laid out how I came to my position and I have put the supporting data on the table.
The problem here is that you strongly prefer a certain raid level and want to believe in its superiority and that you can't put much more than hear say and believing on the table.
End of discussion, case closed. Which btw. is easy for me because, unlike you, I have no horse in the race, no preferred raid level. My interest was merely to find out which raid level is best for a particular scenario like e.g. storage server.
Have a nice day
You come out sounding like an idiot posting that table that makes no sense and then declining to explain what the numbers are supposed to mean. Of course, you are perfectly entitled to sound like an idiot if that's what you want to do, so feel free.
Cut the BS. The formulas have been given, the values are given. If you still fail to make sense, then it's certainly not me looking like an idiot.
The formula makes no sense, the numbers in your table don't match the formula, and I wasn't able to find such a "standard formula" with a quick online search. So you still look like an idiot.